Bacon's Rebellion

JMU Debate Team Opposes Debate

—

by

Robin Beres
in , ,

by Kerry Dougherty

It’s been decades since I was in college so help me out here. Wouldn’t you expect a university debate team to support free speech and the airing of diverse ideas?

Yep, that’s what I thought too.

But you haven’t met the easily triggered members of James Madison University’s debate team. They’re leading the opposition to a scheduled appearance next week by conservative author and podcaster Liz Wheeler. The topic of her speech: The Ideology of Transgenderism.

Stunning.

These pearl-clutching lefties are so devoted to the trans movement that they want to dismiss and silence anyone who dares to question the notion that boys can become girls and girls can become boys.

Apparently a gaggle of so-called debaters have anointed themselves the arbiters of what is and what isn’t worthwhile speech at a state-supported university.

These are supposed to be lovers of debate. I guess they prefer to stick to esoteric, yawn-inducing topics such as presidential powers and the ethics of animal testing rather than actual issues that resonate outside their little debate club echo chamber.

These “debaters” are so clueless they’re proudly Tweeting their anti-free speech position:

Del. Nick Freitas (R-Culpeper) read the debate team’s attempt to justify its anti-speech position and weighed in on the controversy yesterday:

It’s all very simple. If you’re saying something the debate team agrees with, that represents a flourishing of ideas and diverse perspectives. But if you’re saying something they do not agree with, that represents antagonizing marginalized groups. Wheeler is coming to campus as the guest of a national conservative student group called Young Americans for Freedom. She’s a dynamic 33-year-old who has been on the conservative scene for several years. Like many of us, she shares the radical belief that there are two genders.

It’s worth noting that JMU hosted Anthony Fauci and CNN’s Jim Acosta (a JMU alum) in a Town Hall setting earlier this month.

According to their Tweets in late March, the university’s YAF members planned to attend to hear what these two lefties had to say.

So who really believes in free speech? A debate team that wants to shut down debate or the conservatives who were willing to listen to liberal drivel?

If you know any students at JMU who haven’t been completely brainwashed by left-leaning faculty members, urge them to attend Liz Wheeler’s speech next Wednesday, April 26 at 6 p.m. in JMU’s Madison Union Ballroom.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

62 responses to “JMU Debate Team Opposes Debate”

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    A 20% increase in their tuition works for me….

  2. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    Debate is core to the educational mission. However, at some point you have to draw the line and say that certain views are unacceptable in civilized society, and not worth publicizing or debating. It’s a subjective standard to be sure, and one that I tend to think only applies to the most vile ideologies (one such example would be that it’s not worth debating a person who espouses the idea that the other side is subhuman or should be killed), but I think it’s worth drawing lines of what sorts of ideologies are outside the bounds of civilized debate. I think Liz Wheeler is vile, but it’s probably worth having the debate. I draw the line at folks like Nick Fuentes. One thing to note is that Republicans in VA have wasted a lot of time and effort rooting out “inherently divisive concepts” in our schools, which cuts directly in the other direction of fostering healthy debate. It would be great if folks could stay somewhat consistent.

    1. VaPragamtist Avatar
      VaPragamtist

      “One thing to note is that Republicans in VA have wasted a lot of time and effort rooting out “inherently divisive concepts” in our schools, which cuts directly in the other direction of fostering healthy debate”

      How so? By “rooting out” these ideas, as you say, it brings them to the forefront for debate, rather than allowing one mode of thinking to slip in, grow, and become the norm.

      1. VaNavVet Avatar
        VaNavVet

        “Rooting out” means that they have been removed from the realm of debate topics. Just part of the conservative cancel culture playbook.

        1. VaPragamtist Avatar
          VaPragamtist

          Then I disagree with the commenter’s premise that they’ve been “rooted out.”

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Disagree all you want, it’s a fact. https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/74—eo/74—eo/EO-1—ENDING-THE-USE-OF-INHERENTLY-DIVISIVE-CONCEPTS,-INCLUDING-CRITICAL-RACE-THEORY,-AND-RESTORING-EXCELLEN.pdf

          2. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
            Blunt Force Karma

            Negative, good buddy.

            Your own link refutes your assertion. The topics in question have in no way been “removed from the realm of debate topics.” This is a common leftist lie. Debating or teaching about such issues is permissible, and it would be a violation of the First Amendment to try to enforce bans.

            As the document to which you link says:

            “Executive Employees shall be prohibited from directing or otherwise compelling
            students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to inherently divisive concepts. “

          3. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Selectively quoting the EO doesn’t help your case: “The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall review all changes made to the
            Commonwealth of Virginia’s public education curriculum within the last 48 months
            to identify inherently divisive concepts, including concepts or ideas related to Critical
            Race Theory, and initiate, through the regular curriculum re-evaluation process,
            changes that will replace them with concepts and lessons that ensure all Virginia
            students are taught to respect all individuals regardless of their race, sex, or faith.”

          4. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
            Blunt Force Karma

            Uh…that actually supports my case and undermines yours…so, although it *is* “selective quotation” in the sense that I selected some quotes rather than others…because it would be absurd to simply reproduce the entire thing…the quote I selected was crucial, refuted your assertion, and conveyed the general sense of the document and the policy. You then quote a passage that does not in any way support your false accusation that the policy “removes the topics from the realm of debate.” Removing something from a children’s curriculum *in no way* removes those topics from debate.

            People should be able to debate about Scientology, but there is no place for Scientology instruction in curriculum.

            And the problem with CRT is that it is an inherently political view, inherently slanted toward a racist version of radical leftism. There is no excuse for inflicting such lunacy on children.

          5. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            I’m sorry, it doesn’t support your view. The EO is for a full reboot of the curriculum, not simply that govt. officials can’t require pledges.

          6. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
            Blunt Force Karma

            1. Incorrect. I suggest you read it again.

            2. It still does not support your original claim that the topics were somehow–though God knows how–being “removed from the realm of debate topics.”

          7. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            You’re attributing the quote the wrong person. I never said that.

      2. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        No, again, there’s a ban on the concepts, not a debate.

        1. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
          Blunt Force Karma

          “A ban on the concepts.”

          LOL no.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            They are being removed from the curriculum. Tell me how I’m wrong.

          2. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
            Blunt Force Karma

            You are wrong, my good man.

      3. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        You have to distinguish between children and adults. Colleges are almost 100% over 18 and, therefore, adults. Public schools are almost 100% under 18 and, therefore, children.

        1. VaPragamtist Avatar
          VaPragamtist

          I’d argue that college students are more likely to be influenced by the ideologies in the classroom than public school students. While the latter leave school, go back home, and are influenced by their families and communities, the former are in an academic bubble, experiencing total independence, and subconsciously relying on faculty as the authority figures in their lives.

          Interestingly (and somewhat annoyingly), many of the college students I encounter also refer to themselves as “kids” and faculty/staff as “adults” despite the reality of their age.

        2. M. Purdy Avatar
          M. Purdy

          Actually, many activists have tried to apply Youngkin’s EO No. 1 to higher educations as well. And these activists get free publicity on this website.

    2. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
      Blunt Force Karma

      “Rooting out” is far too vague.

      What VA and FL do is prohibit indoctrination (aka “training”) and other means of subjecting individuals to such ideas involuntarily. Neither state is prohibiting discussion of such ideas–they can’t, of course, as it’d be a violation of the First Amendment. But they’re right that students, faculty, employees, etc. cannot be subjected to political indoctrination on pain of firing, expulsion, etc.

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        They’re removing it from the curriculum, which is typically how discussions of such ideas arise in K-12. And VA had a tipline for any parents who heard their teachers might be engaging in such topics. The bottom line is that if you support that sort of silliness, but bristle at JMU’s debate team arguing that certain speakers shouldn’t be allowed, those things are not consistent with one another.

        1. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
          Blunt Force Karma

          Completely wrong.

          *Indoctrination* has no place in any curriculum–especially a K-12 curriculum. Indoctrination is not teaching. Curriculums are for teaching.

          The JMU debate team is arguing–for absurd reasons, incidentally, that the issue should not be *debated openly*…*on a college campus.*

          So you’ve got this exactly backwards. There should be no state-sponsored indoctrination *anywhere.* But *debate* must be free and open–*particularly* on college campuses.

  3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    One of my brothers wanted to become a dog when he was a very little boy. My mother told him that was impossible. He was a human being and would be so for the rest of his life. Was she wrong? Could he have elected to live his life as a dog? If so, would that make him a dog?

    I get that some people have gender-related issues. They should be treated with respect and compassion. And when they become adults, they can have whatever medical procedures they want. But biologically, males are males and females are female. Two X chromosomes versus one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. How they choose to live their lives is up to them.

    Doctors all over the world are raising concern about medical treatments for minors, especially as many, but certainly not all, change their minds. We don’t allow minors to make certain decisions or hold them to the same legal standards as adults. But lots of American hospitals and doctors are making big bucks removing and adding parts.

    It’s wrong to begin to undo the progress we’ve made in sports for females by forcing them to compete against biological males who are physically stronger.

    A couple years ago, I watched an indoor track meet held outdoors because of COVID. For the distance races, both boys and girls ran in the same heat but were timed separately. But for he slowest male, every boy ran far ahead of every single girl, including the fastest females by a long shot. And the slowest male was far ahead of all but the fastest females. Had there not been separate “scoring” for the boys and the girls, not a single girl would have scored for her school. And had all but the slowest boy been permitted to compete as a girl, none of the bona fide girls would have scored either. That’s wrong and unfair to females.

  4. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
    Blunt Force Karma

    There is always some reason for which criticism of the left should not be aired: it’s hate speech, it “erases” people, it provokes violence, it constitutes violence, it interferes with saving the planet…or impedes implementation of some other left-preferred response to some alleged crisis or other. Or, as in this case: the criticism is offered in bad faith. Because, of course, all criticisms of the left–except those from further left–are in bad faith!

    Always something. Always an excuse.

    I guess “We’re all for debate, but…” is the new “we’re all for free speech, but…”

    I almost don’t blame the debate team, though. JMU–and I speak from experience–bathes them in an atmosphere of smug, leftist groupthink.

    Now…I was a debater (not at JMU)…and I have to say, my fellow debaters and I would have absolutely shredded gender ideology and the rest of this politically correct nonsense. So I don’t completely excuse the debate team. To teach people to win arguments without teaching them to genuinely reason and seek the truth is an intellectual crime. It’s to unleash a destructive force onto society. Unfortunately, that’s what JMU debate seems to have done.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      To teach people to win arguments without teaching them to genuinely reason and seek the truth is an intellectual crime.

      Excellent! I agree 100%. May I use this quote myself? I promise not to claim credit for it…

      🙂

      1. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
        Blunt Force Karma

        Glad you like it…

        [Raises hand in benediction]

        Go ye forth and freely quote this wisdom with my blessing

      2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Lost essential skill: the ability to defend an argument. We once did that in public education. Sacrificed on some ideological alter. Such a shame.

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The phallic fallacy? Sorry, couldn’t resist….The joke is gone without the other comment…

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Res ipsa loquitur
      Latin: “the thing speaks for itself”

      In this case, the “thing” speaking is a male body part. Read below:

      Seven past and present sorority members are suing the Kappa Kappa Gamma sisterhood for its 2022 decision to admit transgender inductee Artemis Langford to the University of Wyoming chapter.

      “An adult human male does not become a woman just because he tells others that he has a female ‘gender identity’ and behaves in what he believes to be a stereotypically female manner,” reads a legal complaint filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for Wyoming.

      “Smith” is 21 years old, is 6 feet, 2 inches tall and weighs 260 pounds, the document says, adding, “No other member of Kappa Kappa Gamma has comparable size or strength.”

      Langford is “sexually interested in women,” the lawsuit alleges, adding that “Smith” – Langford – has a profile on Tinder “through which he seeks to meet women.”

      “Mr. Smith has, while watching members enter the sorority house, had an erection visible through his leggings,” the suit says. “Other times, he has had a pillow in his lap.”

      https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/03/28/women-sue-university-of-wyoming-sorority-for-accepting-transgender-member/

    2. VaNavVet Avatar
      VaNavVet

      Was this a response to your thoughts on a rise in tuition? Likewise!

    3. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
      Charles D'Aulnais

      Yeah, stinks don’t it? The pun is nothing without the straight line. Ours is not to reason why, but to guess at the sensibilities of the powers that be.

  6. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    Does biology contribute to athletic advantage, and to what extent? If so, should those born a biological male play for a women’s team regardless of gender identity?

    Is gender a social construct? If so, are irreversible physical and chemical body changes to match a social construct a normal response?

    How much agency and autonomy should minors have in their gender decisions, including irreversible physical changes?

    All of these are debatable topics silenced by the left under the heading “transphobic”.

    1. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
      Charles D'Aulnais

      Would you ban surgery to fix a cleft palate, or a ventricle shunt if it took 10 years to show up?

      Do I care about sports beyond the benefit of exercise? Not a wit. Idolizing the physicality of running, jumping, throwing, etc., is worse than meaningless, it’s destructive.

      1. VaPragamtist Avatar
        VaPragamtist

        No one is arguing that a cleft palate or a ventricle shunt are social constructs. But transgender advocates argue that gender is a social construct and is therefore fluid/innumerable. You see the difference?

        Whether or not you care about sports is irrelevant. Millions of athletes do. Transgender athletes do. The debate is important and meaningful.

        You’re just further demonstrating my point: the topics are still debatable, despite their being silenced by the left as “transphobic.”

        1. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
          Charles D'Aulnais

          Not me. I’ve never argued that transgender is social. It’s biological.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Will you be kind enough to explain, from a biological/scientific standpoint, how a human being with one x-chromosome and one y-chromosome can be described as female?

          2. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
            Charles D'Aulnais

            Will wonders never cease. When science develops new tools, they develop more knowledge and the old ways give way to the new…
            https://www.sciencealert.com/a-baby-s-sex-is-about-more-than-just-its-x-and-y-chromosomes-new-research-reveals

            Or, it’s complicated.

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Thanks. But if you read the article carefully, the phenomenon they think they have discovered is an anomaly which is considered abnormal development. They also estimate it affects about 1 in 4,000 people.

            In the time since it has become popular/”hip”/a-good-way-to-garner-attention-upon-oneself, a lot more than 0.0250% of the population is claiming to be transgender.

            Thus, the article you provided, while interesting, does not indicate that transgenderism is primarily, or even secondarily, biological. And the scientists studying the phenomenon have made no such claim.

          4. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
            Charles D'Aulnais

            Ah, but not absolute, eh? Look, I can readily go for the XXPGA and the XYPGA. Works for me. Just need to change Title IX to reflect the definition.

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Not conclusive is how I would put it.

            I am 100% sincere when I say that I do not care what consenting adults do with/to their bodies, or who they fall in love with, or have sex with, etc. I may not agree with their choices, but they are theirs to take and none of my business.

            The one and only bone have to pick with the “transgender rights” crowd, and it is a big one, is their obsession with trying to provide hormones and or surgery to minors, especially without parental consent. A large percentage of “transgender rights” advocates not only support, but DEMAND, that such things be provided to minors.

            I do not think children are competent to take such permanent life-altering decisions. A 14 year-old who thinks he might really be a girl has a much greater chance, after further physical, sexual and emotional development, of realizing he was wrong than does a fully mature adult who has those thoughts. But if such a teenager has already taken massive doses of female hormones, or even undergone surgery, then he has done irreversible damage to his body for no logical reason.

            There are a lot of natural hormones being released into teenagers’ bodies, and these cause enough changes in their brains and bodies without adding artificial ones. There are so many emotional changes and so much mental development occurring at that age that I think it is a mistake to allow them to decide once and for all that they are not the gender they were born as.

            Once they have reached physical, sexual, and emotional maturity, it’s a different story.

            So, what’s the verdict? Am I “transphobic”?

          6. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            You are correct about proselytizing to young people, and keeping important information from parents, but it doesn’t end there.

            Individuals in the transgender community are certainly entitled to their beliefs, but I will not be told what I must believe.

            Additionally, biological men have been abusive of women throughout recorded history. A man shouldn’t be allowed to just profess to be a women and then dress, shower, bath and sleep in women’s facilities.

            For example, putting biological men in women’s prisons without safeguards is absolute lunacy.

            Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent
            official count of transgender prisoners):

            76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%

            125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%

            13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
            16.8%

            https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

          7. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Individuals in the transgender community are certainly entitled to their beliefs, but I will be told what I must believe.

            That is a good point and one which I did not address.

            I will accept the fact that some people think they can change from a man to a woman or vice-versa, and I will not not discriminate against them or abuse them in any way, nor will I allow them to be abused in my presence if I am in a position to prevent it. However, I refuse to celebrate their beliefs. The truth is, though, that for many of them mere acceptance is not enough. They demand that I agree with them. Unfortunately for them, those who make that demand are going to experience disappointment.

          8. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            I accept that some people wish to live their lives as a gender different from that which was originally on their birth certificate.

            Similar to you approach, if they are respectful of me, I will return all the more. I don’t, however, respond well to demands that I proclaim the truth of their religious beliefs.

            With some, it’s like a forced confession of faith, sort of a transgender version of Philippians 2:11. (and every tongue declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father)

            I have my own beliefs. I don’t force them on anyone else, and I don’t let anyone else force their religious beliefs on me.

            I also am a supporter of other people’s religious beliefs.

            Mutual respect and fair treatment for all should be the order of the day, not one way bowing to the demands of the trans activists and the woke mob.

          9. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
            Blunt Force Karma

            > Not me. I’ve never argued that transgender is social. It’s biological.

            It’s mainly a matter of feelings, and most of those are acquired via social contagion.

            But how one acquires such feelings isn’t relevant.

            What’s relevant is that being a man or being a woman is biological and not at all social, nor a matter of feelings.

            Men are adult male humans, women adult female ones. That’s really all there is to it. According to “trans” ideology, adult male humans can be women, etc. But that’s simply false.

          10. VaPragamtist Avatar
            VaPragamtist

            Now you’re misquoting. The argument from the transgender community is that “gender” is a social construct and is therefore fluid and innumerable. Others (especially on the right), argue that “gender” is biological and, therefore, dichotomous.

            So if, as transgender advocates argue, gender is a social construct, are irreversible physical and chemical body changes to match a social construct a normal response?

            And, once again, you’re engaging in debate which, again proves my point that these topics are debatable if the left would only allow them to be debated rather than shut down as “transphobic”.

          11. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
            Charles D'Aulnais

            No. I’m arguing that it’s biological and that the biology is not as settled as you would believe. Then too, there is a social construct. Some people are wrapped around the axle trying to create laws based on gender. They should stop that.

          12. VaPragamtist Avatar
            VaPragamtist

            What is the “it” that you’re referring to? Because I said “gender.” You said “transgender.” Those are two different things.

            And, just to point out again, you’re arguing. Therefore these things can be debated. They should be debated. The left needs to allow them to be debated.

      2. Blunt Force Karma Avatar
        Blunt Force Karma

        First, you stand opposed to e.g. Plato in that opinion. Just sayin’…

        Second, it’s not your decision to make. Other people devote much effort to achieving athletic excellence, and understandably refuse to acquiesce to unfair rules. You’re free to start up or contribute to an athletic league in which men pretending to be women can in effect force women to compete against them. But the rest of us are free to start or support other types of leagues.

        Your idiosyncratic view about athletic competition is your business–but, accordingly, of no interest to most of us.

      3. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Do I care about sports beyond the benefit of exercise? Not a wit.

        And for those involved in the issue, that matters not a whit.

        In the real world, sports matter a great deal to a lot of people. You adopting a superior, I’m above it all, position on the subject does not change that one whit. It also has nothing to do with the issue of whether biological males should be allowed to compete against biological females in women’s sports.

        And the issue should be able to be debated without one side retreating to their safe-spaces screaming “transphobic” at the top of their lungs if someone disagrees with them.

        1. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
          Charles D'Aulnais

          They’re entertaining. It’s entertainment. I’m sure sports do matter to a lot of people. It doesn’t elevate the accomplishments beyond just what it is, physical prowess. If a transgender female can demolish her opponents and the masses feel that’s an unfair advantage, then ban them. They ban steroids, blood doping, etc. Got no heartburn with it.

          Warner Oland.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            If a transgender female can demolish her opponents and the masses feel that’s an unfair advantage, then ban them.

            And you would not accuse them of being “transphobic” if they enacted such a ban? Really?

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Okay.

            I do not think such books should be banned from High School libraries. I do not think they should be assigned reading, but I do not favor removing them completely.

            I will say that I do not think books about transgender issues (or any sexual issues, actually) are appropriate for libraries in elementary schools.

            I’m torn on middle schools. I guess it would depend on the book(s) themselves, and which ‘grades’ are present in a given middle school.

            I think we should let children be children. They’ll have plenty of time to contemplate issues such as sexuality when they get older.

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Okay.

            I do not think such books should be banned from High School libraries. I do not think they should be assigned reading, but I do not favor removing them completely.

            I will say that I do not think books about transgender issues (or any sexual issues for that matter) are appropriate for libraries in elementary schools.

            I’m torn on middle schools. I guess it would depend on the book(s) themselves, and which ‘grades’ are present in a given middle school.

            I think we should let children be children. They’ll have plenty of time to contemplate issues such as sexuality when they get older.

            PS – To be clear, so no one misinterprets my comment, I oppose censorship of reading material in community public libraries and college libraries).

          4. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
            Charles D'Aulnais

            Just so you know, I answered you but the moderator for reasons known only to them, deleted it (and the post to which you replied). There is no point in trying to reword in the blind.

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I know.

            As you can probably tell, I had a chance to read your comment before I replied. Based on my understanding of the rules for posting on this blog, I saw nothing in what you wrote that violated the standards.

            Curious.

          6. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I know.

            As you can probably tell, I had a chance to read your comment before I replied. Based on my understanding of the rules for posting on this blog, I saw nothing in what you wrote that violated the standards.

            Curious.

          7. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I know.

            As you can probably tell, I had a chance to carefully read your initial comment before I replied. Based on my understanding of the rules for posting on this blog, I saw nothing in what you wrote that violated the standards.

            Curious.

          8. Charles D'Aulnais Avatar
            Charles D'Aulnais

            Just so you know, I answered you but the moderator for reasons known only to them, deleted it (and the post to which you replied). There is no point in trying to reword in the blind.

  7. kls Avatar
    kls

    ‘. . . highly at risk like transgender students’? You mean like the ones committing mass shootings recently? Please define ‘highly at risk’?

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Transgender appears to be at the top of the left’s victim hierarchy. No contrary views allowed. Period.

      Notice that the families of the Nashville shooting victims aren’t invited to the Whitehouse. They don’t count, and are not to be heard from. Instead, Biden invites the opportunistic Tennessee lawmakers to the Whitehouse.

      Sure looks like the manifesto, suicide note, and journals of the shooter will never see the light of day. What are they hiding?

      https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1648021495044534272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1648021495044534272%7Ctwgr%5Eff5b361e4d542ba9a725f3397377c2115e400eae%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2Flincolnbrown%2F2023%2F04%2F18%2Fwhat-are-they-hiding-about-the-nashville-shooters-manifesto-glenn-greenwald-and-others-want-to-know-n1688298

  8. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    So, the logic appears to be that debate on this topic is unthinkable because the transgender community is “at risk.”

    News Flash:

    There have been over 130 attacks on Catholic churches since the leak of the Dobbs decision, and six Christians were just killed in Nashville.

    Does that prohibit speech about Christians, or Christian beliefs?

  9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    I see very little difference between the free speech the debate team exercised and the free speech Kerry has exercised herein. Does Kerry believe that she is anti-free speech because she wrote this article?

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT